APHC010211762024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3200/2024 & 4767/2022 Criminal Petition No.3200 of 2024:

Between:

PARA SAI KRISHNA, S/O.VENKATA PUMA CHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, DIRECTOR CUM CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER OF COGNITIVE INNOVATIONS LABS PVT LTD., R/O.MULAGUNTAPADU VILLAGE, SINGARAYAKONDA MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT LONDON (U.K).

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI.

2. AMBATI DINESH, S/O MOHAN RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 25-2-279, 3^RD CROSS ROAD, MILITARY COLONY, NELLORE TOWN, S.P.S.R, NELLORE DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Criminal Petition No.4767 of 2022 Between:

PARA VENKAT RAMESH, S/O. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC-DIRECTOR CUM CEO OF COGNITIVE INNOVATIONS LABS PVT LTD., R/O.D.NO.2-174/2, MULAGUNTAPADU VILLAGE, SINGARAYAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER R/O MULAGUNTAPADU VILLAGE, PARA KONDAIAH, S/O. NARASIMHAMSINGARAYAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM ISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI.

2. AMBATI DINESH, S/O MOHAN RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 25-2-279, 3^RD CROSS ROAD, MILITARY COLONY, NELLORE TOWN, S.P.S.R, NELLORE DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. MADALA NARASINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER

The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ have been filed by the Petitioners /Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.15 of 2021 of P.M.Palem Police Station, Viskhapatnam City for the offences under Sections

406, 409, 420 and 477-A read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860²

2. Heard Sri Madala Narasinga Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. None appeared for Respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that as per Sections 210 and 212 of the Companies Act, the Police have no jurisdiction to register the present case and the complaining authority shall be either Registrar or the Inspector appointed under the Act. Learned counsel would further submit that only Special Courts constituted under Section 415 of Companies Act shall have authority to take cognizance of the offences referred under the Act. Learned counsel would submit that, as per Section 212 of the Companies Act,

For short ‘Cr.P.C’

For short ‘I.P.C’

Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall only have authority to investigate into affairs of Company. Learned counsel would finally submit that in view guideline No.6 of the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, the proceedings against the Petitioners are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. It is submitted that the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

5. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers